 |
| Picture |
Among those who were quite passionate in response to this case included Trump and Jeff Sessions, each pushing for San Francisco to be more compliant with federal deportation efforts. According to them and other conservatives, it was San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city that allowed him to shoot Steinle.
Zarate recounts the experience as him finding a firearm beneath a pier chair, and when he picked it up, it fired on Steinle. However, jurors also found him not guilty of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. It was the charge of possessing a weapon, breaching part of a bond he signed years ago, which enabled him to ultimately be removed from the country.
Article
1. In spite of all the evidence, do you think this ruling was fair towards the Steinle family after waiting 2 years for justice?
2. Do you think Zarate's account of what happened can be classified as involuntary manslaughter?
3. Should sanctuary cities like San Francisco respond to this case by becoming more compliant with federal immigration agencies and handing over certain undocumented immigrants, or should they unequivocally maintain their stance and stand their ground like Mayor Ed Lee?
8 comments:
To begin, I believe that the ruling towards Ines was fair due to the fact that he was dropped on the charges of second-degree murder as it was clear that the shooting was clearly an accident. However, that does not discharge him of coming to the United States after being deported 5 times. It should have occurred to him that he was under violation in re-entering the United States illegally and had to pay the price to do so. I believe that the ruling was fair as they stated in a rule that he acknowledged that he will not be able to come back to the United States due to the issues that he's caused from re-entering illegally to the united states. Reading more into the case, I read that the prosecution has stated that he had no intention of killing her in any way as it was said that it was a "freak accident". And I believe that the ruling that was given to him was fair as since it was an accident and he found the firearm under a chair and had no clear intention of killing the woman does not constitute that he would be guilty under second-degree murder. I believe that this case should not be taken as a reason that sanctuary cities should allow immigration to enter into their city as this was a mere accident. However, I am leaning both ways due to the fact that Ines was not supposed to be in the United States and has been deported 5 times. I believe that cases like this need to be dealt with regardless of whether the city is a sanctuary city or not.
I believe the ruling was fair. If the Jury had decided that he did not fire the weapon intentionally then he should not be charged for those offenses. Jose is still doing time for the possession of a murder weapon so the Steinle family got at least some form of justice. If the account of his situation is accurate then I believe what happened can be considered involuntary manslaughter.
I think that the ruling was fair because it was an accident. It is sad that this accident caused the death of someone however the ruling was fair in my opinion.
The ruling was not fair in the slightest. Zarate should have been found guilty for involuntary manslaughter, because even if his actions might have been accidental (we do not know if they were), they still led to the death of another person. I disagree that it is effective to "ban" Zarate from the US. He has found his way in illegally five times, so I believe that he would be able to do it again. I also think that Zarate greatly exemplifies the downfalls of having a very weak border. It is ridiculous that he has been able to sneak into this country so many times without punishment. Now his actions have led to the death of an innocent person, so we shall see if justice is served.
I believe that the ruling was overall relatively fair. The incident was clearly an accident, and therefore the jury's decision was correct. However, his repeated violation of illegal immigration and rightly was deported. This case is specifically interesting, due to Trumps promise to build a wall an increase border control. It was cases like these where Trump built upon his anti immigration stance and this was one of his largest campaign platforms.
I agree with Nico. There is a reason he was charged with manslaughter, which just means that he killed someone on accident, which is invariably true. There is no reason why this case should not be ruled as what it is, and no one was arguing for the death as being a murder anyway. I see this case as sort of a political issue, because if Zarate had been convicted of manslaughter, it stands against the role of California as a sanctuary state, which means that illegal immigrants can easily stay here. It is basically this rule that made the crime possible, so the crime has to be downplayed. In this way, Steinle's death was overlooked for liberal agenda, which I think is not fair. Promoting the rights of illegal immigrants and all minorities does not need to involve the condoning of killing of white people.
The points above were pretty interesting, and they make me want to know more about this trial. If the defendant states that he was the one who picked up the weapon that killed someone else, then that seems like pretty solid evidence for why he should be convicted. it's hard to imagine how "it" fired on Steinle, since guns don't usually shoot by themselves...
If what Michael's saying is true, then I think that this relates to the reading we did for class today which describes the process of supporting one's political agenda, instead of whatever is best for the nation. In this case, it might be the case that they are bending the rules of justice to protect their own political statements and reputation, in the same way that Republicans opposed the a tax bill in 2010 solely because Obama was president and they didn't want to support him, regardless of their stance on the actual bill.
I do agree that this was an accident, and it can be classified as involuntary manslaughter. I believe they did their best in order for him to get justice, because courts are so backed up that it takes time for them to get from one case to another. I don't think San Francisco should respond to this case by becoming more compliant with federal immigration agencies and handing over certain undocumented immigrants because if it's an accident then they shouldn't really be punished for crimes that are involuntary manslaughter.
Post a Comment